RDF work and backwards compat
benjamin at smedbergs.us
Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:35:24 -0500
Axel Hecht wrote:
> Actually, I'd argue the other way around. The History and Bookmarks
> overhaul is getting us much closer to Aurora (take a smiling look at
> http://www.mozilla.org/xpapps/aurora/) than we have been for about half
> a decade. And that was actually the reason for Netscape to implement RDF
> in the first place, AFAICT. I'm seeing quite a few APIs floating around
> on wiki.m.o to add metadata to URLs, and they're not really a lot
> simpler than the RDF apis as of now.
But you're confusing the *UI* of integration with the *implementation* of
integration. RDF has no significant place in the new bookmarks and history
integration. I think that rather than supporting a technology which was
never meant for the web browser, we should be looking towards microformats
and other technologies for data presentation and integration which have
real-world applications right now.
> If you take a look at http://wiki.mozilla.org/Annotations,
> nsIVariant getAnnotation(in nsIURI aURI, in wstring aName);
> with a namespaced string for the name is just RDF. We may not call it
> that way, but that doesn't change what it is.
> (http://wiki.mozilla.org/Bookmarks_Data_API is even more involved, I
> tried to understand it, I should try again.)
This is the exact problem with RDF: *everything* could be RDF (a combination
of data-triples) if you work hard enough. But it's really not worth it to
work that hard.
Aurora was a nice pipedream, as is RDF. Instead of trying to integrate an
unbounded set of possible data, let's work on integrating and presenting a
bounded set (history/bookmarks) of data that we know is valuable to the user.